It's pretty clear that Kos is pushing a program of positive
liberty rather in opposition to the classical libertarian notion of
liberty as non-interference. I fear that once you cash out precisely
what Kos has in mind by ensuring that people aren't "unduly
exploited by employers," whatever that means, or by "poverty
prevention" and "social net programs," we'll discover
something disappointingly like the Democratic party status
quo. In which case, Kos will be simply declaring
a pretty standard set of Democratic policies as "libertarian,"
in defiance of the normal understanding of the term. Is this a
Machiavellian attempt at the dark Lakovian arts
of re-framing? Or, more hopefully, a
reflection of a sincere wish to court libertarians away from a lately
abusive alliance with Republicans?

I'd bet the answer to both Will's questions is yes. Serendipitously,
Stephen Spruiell at the NR Media Blog dug up a Swedish magazine's
interview with Kos, where he's quoted:

"I was in England recently, where they don't allow political ads on
TV. It was a fantastic experience. It was so beautiful that I cried."

Yes, the "Libertarian Dem" is also enthusiastically in
favor of government regulation and supression of political speech.
What else?

URLs du Jour

2006-06-08

Both New Hampshire senators, Gregg and Sununu, voted against
cloture on the Federal Marriage Amendment, helping to seal its doom
for now. This was a switch for Senator Gregg, who voted for
it in 2004. Yay for both of them.

Dafydd proposes an interesting substitute
that would protect unwilling states from being forced to accept gay
marriage by judicial fiat, while allowing
willing states to do so, and decline to
accept gay marriage for federal purposes. Maybe next time they'll try
something more sensible.

Good WSJeditorial
today on the Death Tax, especially good where it discusses a fact
that makes lefty heads spin: the tax is unpopular among people
(like me, unfortunately) that would never have to pay it:

Americans favor repealing the death tax not because they think it will
help them directly. They're more principled than that. Two-thirds of the
public wants to repeal it because they think taxing a lifetime of thrift
due to the accident of death is unfair, and even immoral. They also
understand that the really rich won't pay the tax anyway because they
hire lawyers to avoid it.

Also mentioned is a point that relates back to my Paris
Hilton post of yesterday:

The American Family Business Institute has found that the bulk of the
Hilton estate has long been sheltered from the IRS in tax-free trusts.

So even if you have a nasty burning desire to hurt Paris, keeping the
estate tax around won't do the job. Sorry. Maybe you could kidnap
her stupid
little dog instead.

[Yes, I know repeal failed. Sigh.]

If you happen upon a random USB flash drive just
lying around, make like Dionne
Warwick's ex-boyfriend and walk on by. (Via GeekPress.)

Disclaimers:
Unquoted opinions expressed herein are solely those of the
blogger.

Pun Salad is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates
Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a
means for the blogger to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.